In March 2003, President George W. Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq, a state which the Bush administration claimed was linked to the September 11 attacks in 2001, and claimed was producing weapons of mass destruction. That May, just two months after the initial invasion, Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In the following months, insurgents began resisting the American occupation. Additionally, religious tensions between majority Shiite and minority Sunni Muslims, tensions which had been suppressed under the grip of the Hussein regime, began to result in violence. By the end of 2003, despite the war being initially popular, the post-war occupation was losing support from the American public. A November 2003 Gallup poll showed that Bush's job approval rating had fallen to 50% from a high of 71% at the outset of the war.[3]

The next year, Bush won reelection over Democratic nominee SenatorJohn Kerry with less than 51% of the popular vote and 286 electoral votes (only 16 votes ahead of the 270 votes needed.), the smallest winning margin for an incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 Presidential Election. It was, however, the first time since 1988 that a winner garnered a popular majority. Terrorism and the war in Iraq dominated the election, with domestic issues taking a secondary role. Bush began his second term with a continuation of the occupation and a push to overhaul Social Security with his privatization plan. Both policies proved unpopular, and violence in Iraq continued to increase. Compounding the unpopularity of the war was that no weapons of mass destruction were found. August 2005 was the last time any major public opinion poll recorded majority approval of Bush's job.[4] Negative perceptions of Bush following the slow governmental response to Hurricane Katrina further weighed on his popularity.

Simultaneously, the Republican-controlled 109th Congress's popularity was declining as well. A series of notable congressional scandals also took place in Washington, D.C., including the ongoing Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal as well as the Mark Foley scandal and the Cunningham scandal, both in October 2006. Throughout 2006, sectarian violence was ongoing in Baghdad and other areas of Iraq; many[5][6] claimed that the conflict was evolving into a civil war. President Bush's job approval rarely rose above 40%. Perceptions of Congress and Republicans in general remained highly negative. Additionally, the Congress had a smaller than average list of major accomplishments (considering that the Party in charge of both the House and Senate also had control of the White House) and was not in session for a larger than average amount of days, allowing Democrats and others to characterize it as a "Do-Nothing" congress and blame the Republican leadership for the lack of progress.

The Democratic Party won a majority of the state governorships[7] and the U.S. House and Senate seats each for the first time since 1994, an election-year commonly known as the "Republican Revolution." For the first time since the creation of the Republican party in 1854, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat.[8]

Some of the Republican House and Senate seats lost by the Republicans belonged to members of the Republican Revolution of 1994. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Representatives Charlie Bass (R-New Hampshire), John Hostettler (R-Indiana), Gil Gutknecht (R-Minnesota), and J. D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) all were elected in Democrat held seats in the 1994 elections and defeated in 2006. Sue Kelly (R-New York), also elected in 1994, was defeated as well. The Democrats also won back the Kansas 2nd and Ohio 18th, both lost to them in 1994.

The Democratic Party also claimed a majority of state governorships in the 2006 elections, gaining control of Republican-held governorships in New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Arkansas, Maryland and Ohio, to give the party a 28–22 advantage in governorships.

Scandals, including the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, the Jack Abramoff scandal, and various allegations of marital infidelity and abuse doomed certain candidates, especially incumbents in PA-10 and NY-20, which hosted one of the most negative campaigns in the country. Virginia Senator George Allen, a potential Republican 2008 Presidential candidate, saw his chances for reelection disappear when he was caught on video using a racial slur to describe a young Indian-American who worked for his opponent's campaign.

Of the 50 United States governors, 36 were up for election. Twenty two of those contested seats were held by Republicans, and the remaining 14 were held by Democrats. Of the 36 state governorships up for election, ten were open due to retirement, term limits, or primary loss. Although most governors serve four-year terms, the two exceptions, Vermont and New Hampshire, elect governors to two-year terms. As a result of the 2006 gubernatorial elections, there are now 28 Democratic governors and 22 Republican governors, a reversal of the numbers held by the respective parties prior to the elections.

Additionally, governorships were up for election in the U.S. territories of Guam, held by a Republican, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the Democratic governor was retiring. In each location, the incumbent party maintained control of the governorship.

Democrats won a veto-proof supermajority in both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly, with Democrats holding a commanding 131–56 majority.

The most dramatic change in party control occurred with the New Hampshire General Court, where Republicans held a 92-seat majority in the lower House and an eight-seat majority in the upper Senate prior to the election. By the end of the evening, Republicans were down 81 seats in the House and five in the Senate, giving control of the General Court to the Democrats. This coincided with the landslide reelection of Democratic Governor John Lynch, the takeover of both of New Hampshire's U.S. House seats by Democrats, and New Hampshire's unique Executive Council gaining a Democratic majority.

Third parties received largely mixed results in the 2006 elections. In the Maine House of Representatives, Green State Representative John Eder was narrowly defeated by Democratic rival Jon Hinck in a bitterly contested campaign over Portland's 118th District. Eder's loss deprived the U.S. Green movement's highest elected position in any state office.[20]

In Illinois, out of seemingly dissatisfaction of both the candidacies of Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich and Republican candidate Judy Baar Topinka resulted in 10% of the electorate voting for the Green Party candidate Rich Whitney, an accomplishment by all means considering Whitney did not campaign on television or radio.

In Montana, Rick Jore made history becoming the first candidate of the right-wing Constitution Party to be elected to a state legislature, elected to the 12th District in the Montana House of Representatives. Jore initially won in 2004 by three votes, only to see the courts throw out enough ballots to give the Democrat the victory. In the 2006 elections, Jore won convincingly, garnering 56.2% of the vote.[21] However, the Montana Constitution Party is no longer chartered under the national party, denying the United States Constitution Party the claim of holding a higher office.

In a hotly contested referendum that inspired a widely publicized feud between conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and actor Michael J. Fox, Missouri voters narrowly passed an initiative to allow funding for embryonic stem cell research. The presence of the referendum on the ballot may also have aided Democrat Claire McCaskill in her victory over incumbent senator Jim Talent, who had opposed the measure.

An amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would have levied a Tobacco Tax was defeated 51 to 48.

Rhode Island voters approved a constitutional amendment to reextend the franchise to former criminals following their release, effectively enfranchising individuals on parole or probation.

In California, voters endorsed a $37 billion package of bonds (Propositions 1A through 1E) to pay for transportation projects, housing, levee repairs and other infrastructure—said to be the largest program of its kind in U.S. history.[22]

Numerous other elections for local, city, and county public offices were held.

An unusual local election occurred in South Dakota; Marie Steichen was elected to Jerauld County Commissioner, despite the fact that she died two months before the election. Her name was never replaced on the ballot, and voters who chose her were aware of her death.[23]

Beginning just after George W. Bush's reelection, political analysts point to a number of factors and events that led to the eventual Republican defeat in 2006. It is generally agreed that the single most important issue during the 2006 election was the war in Iraq, and more specifically President Bush's handling of it and the overall public weariness over it.

Public opinion polling conducted during the days just before the election and the weeks just after it showed that the war in Iraq was considered the most important election issue by the largest segment of the public.[28] Exit polling showed that relatively large majorities of voters both fell into the category of disapproving of the war or expressing the desire to withdraw troops in some type of capacity. Both brackets broke extremely heavily for Democrats.[29] The issue of the war seemed to play a large part in the nationalization of the election, a departure from previous midterm elections, which tended to be about local, district-centric issues.[30] The effect of this was a general nationwide advantage for Democrats, who were not seen as being as tied to the war as Republicans, led by George Bush, were.

President Bush himself, seen as the leader and face of the Republican party, was a large factor in the 2006 election. Exit polls showed that a large block of the electorate had voted for Democrats or for third parties specifically because of personal opposition to or dislike for Bush. The size of the segment that said it had voted specifically to support Bush was not as large.[31] Opposition to Bush was based on a number of factors, these not limited to opposition to his Social Security privatization plan, the slow response of his administration to Hurricane Katrina, his perceived inaction in the face of and association with rising gas prices, and as mentioned above, his continued commitment to the war.[32]

Congressional approval, which had been slightly negative since before the 2004 election, began a steady drop beginning in March 2005. Congress's unprecedented and unpopular involvement in the Terri Schiavo controversy is often pointed to as the catalyst for this drop. Congressional scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, the sentencing of Duke Cunningham to over eight years in prison, the indictment of then House majority leader Tom DeLay, the corruption of William J. Jefferson and Bob Ney, the misconduct of Cynthia McKinney, and the Mark Foley scandal all continued to pull down congressional popularity. In the months leading up to the election, congressional approval ratings flirted with all-time historical lows. Because congress was controlled by Republicans, this high disapproval affected Republicans much more negatively than it did Democrats.

Democrats were successful in portraying the congress as a lazy, greedy, egotistical and inefficient "Do-Nothing Congress.", which they contrasted with their "New Direction for America" campaign. Indeed, the congress had been in session much less than previous ones had[33] (including those under Republican control), and numerous public opinion polls showed that large majorities believed that the congress had accomplished less than normal. This too, took a toll on Republicans (as the leaders of the government).

The listed scandals were all dwarfed by the highly publicised Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September and rapidly metastasized to include the House Republican leadership. Florida Representative Mark Foley, who ironically headed the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, was found to have been making sexually lewd and highly inappropriate contacts online with male congressional pages, and it was soon found that members of the Republican leadership knew in some capacity of Foley's advances, yet took little action. The scandal allowed Democrats to adopt corruption as a campaign issue, and exit polls on election day showed that corruption remained an important issue, one that Democrats held an advantage on.[34] In addition, many (at the time and after the fact) cited the scandal as an event that sealed the fate of the Republican congress.[35][36] After the election, top Republican strategist Karl Rove specifically named the Foley scandal as the cause of the Republicans' loss of congress.[37]

Almost all of the gains made by Democrats came from large gains among independents, not Republicans. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all accounted for proportions of the electorate similar to what they did in 2004. Democrats and Republicans voted nearly as loyally for their parties in 2006 as they did in 2004, but independents exhibited a large swing towards Democrats. In 2004, independents split 49-46, slightly in favor of Democrats,[38] but in 2006 they voted 57–39 for Democrats, a fifteen-point swing and the largest margin among independents for Democrats since the 1986 elections.[39]

There were scattered reports of problems at polling places across the country as new electronic voting systems were introduced in many states. The problems ranged from voter and election official confusion about how to use new voting machines to apparent political dirty tricks designed to keep certain voters from casting their votes to inclement weather suppressing turnout.

Some reported problems:

Millions of allegedly harassing and deceptive "robo-calls" were reported or placed in at least 53 house districts. The vast majority of the calls were reported to begin with the message "Hello, I'm calling with information about (Democratic candidate)" and continue with a negative message concerning the candidate. Regulatory statements concerning the sponsor of the message (usually the NRCC) allegedly did not come until after the message, instead of before, as the FCC mandates. Citizens reported receiving calls several times an hour and as late as 2:30 AM, and many held the mistaken belief that the calls were from Democratic campaigns.[40]

Vandals chained the main door and broke keys into the locks of New Jersey Republican candidate for Senate Tom Kean Jr.'s headquarters. Accusations have been made towards Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez, but they deny any involvement in the situation.[53]

The Chicago Board of Elections has been running a Web site that has allowed, by a simple programming hack, the exposure of personal information of a million registered voters (fixed on October 21, 2006).[57]

In Maryland, some voters were given sample ballots by Republican supporters that incorrectly listed Republicans Robert Ehrlich and Michael Steele as Democrats.[61]

Electronic voting machine problems in Kane County, Illinois kept the polls open until 8:30pm CST, an hour and a half later than scheduled.[62]

In western Washington, flooding from heavy rainfall interfered with the elections.[63]

In Denver, Colorado, the computer system containing the voter registration rolls slowed down and crashed on several occasions during the day causing lines that were over two hours long at some vote centers.[64] Some vote centers ran out of provisional ballots, and sample ballots had to be used instead.[65]

Also in Denver, 44,000 absentee ballots were misprinted with the "yes" and "no" positions on a ballot issue reversed. Also, the bar code designating the ballot style was misprinted, requiring the ballots to be hand sorted which delayed results by over a week. The problem is blamed on ballot misprints by Sequoia Voting Systems. Some ballots had to be hand-copied onto other ballots before they could be counted.[66]

Many political analysts concluded that the results of the election were based around President George W. Bush's policies in the War in Iraq and corruption in Congress.[67][68] At a press conference given to address the election results, President Bush called the cumulative results of the election a "thumpin'" by the Democrats.[69]

Democrats have promised an agenda that includes withdrawing from the war in Iraq,[70] raising the minimum wage, implementing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, eliminating subsidies for oil companies, restricting lobbyists, repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, lowering interest rates on college loans, expanding stem-cell research, investigating political appointees for actions taken during and leading to the war in Iraq, allowing current tax cuts to expire,[71] and negotiating Medicare prescription drug prices. They planned to legislate these issues within their first 100 legislative hours of power in January 2007.[72] According to Brian Wright, president of Democrasource, LLC (an Ohio-based national political consulting group), "There's no question, the administration and Iraq set the tone for this year. This new balance of power can be a true catalyst to get the country back on track."

Prior to the election in July 2006 Democrats unveiled a six-point plan they promised to enact if elected with congressional majorities. The plan was billed the "Six for 06 agenda" and officially called "A New Direction For America"[73] and compared to the 1994 Republican "Contract with America".[74] The six-points of the plan include: "honest leadership and open government, real security, energy independence, economic prosperity and educational excellence, a healthcare system that works for everyone, and retirement security".[75]

Real security

In regards to "real security" they propose a "phased redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq, doubling the size of U.S. military special forces to capture Osama Bin Laden and destroy terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, and implementing the 9/11 Commission proposals to secure the national borders of the United States and screen every container arriving at U.S. ports.

Economic prosperity and educational excellence

Democratic plans for economic prosperity include ending the congressional pay raise until the federal minimum wage is raised and withholding tax breaks from U.S. companies that outsource jobs to foreign countries. Within education they plan to cut college loan rates, expand federal grants, and ensure that funds used for college tuition are not taxed.

Energy independence

The Democratic plan for achieving an end to American dependence on foreign countries for oil consists of repealing tax incentives given to oil companies, higher penalties for price gouging gasoline products, increasing tax incentives and funding for the research and development of technologies intended to improve fuel-efficiency and creating viable alternative fuel supplies such as biofuels.

With apparent reference to the impact of the Iraq war policy, in a press conference held on November 8, Bush talked about the election and announced the resignation of Secretary of DefenseDonald Rumsfeld. Bush stated, "I know there's a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we're waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there." Prior to the election, Bush had stated that he intended to keep Rumsfeld on as Secretary of Defense until the end of his Presidency. However, Bush then went on to add Rumsfeld's resignation was not due to the Democratic victories on November 8. Rumsfeld's job reportedly had been on the line for several months prior to the election, and the decision for him to stay until after the election, if he was going to be let go at all, was also reportedly made several months earlier. All this led to his resignation.[76]

In the aftermath of the election The Weekly Standard published a number of articles highly critical of how the Republican Party had managed the United States Congress. It called the electoral defeat for the G.O.P. "only a little short" of "devastating" saying the "party of reform ... didn't reform anything" and warned that the Democratic Party has expanded its "geographical sphere of Democratic power" to formerly Republican-held states such as Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, while it solidified former swing states like Illinois as Democratic strongholds. In the New England region, popular Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was defeated, despite having approval ratings near 60% and Republicans now only control a single district, the CT-04 seat held by Chris Shays, out of 22 congressional districts. The Democrats also became the clear majority in the Mid Atlantic region as well. Two Republican incumbent Congressmen were defeated in New York state and the Democrats picked up a Republican open seat, all from Republican regions upstate, and four Republican Congressmen were defeated in Pennsylvania. Democrats picked up seats in all Northeastern state legislatures holding elections, except Rhode Island, which remained unchanged (and Democrats clearly in the majority), winning a supermajority in both the Connecticut House and Senate, and winning both houses of the New Hampshire legislature for the first time since 1874. Democrats kept both vulnerable Senate seats in Maryland and New Jersey, winning them by wider margins than predicted, and they won the heavily contested Senate seats in Missouri and Virginia.

The Democratic expansion into Indiana, Virginia and Ohio has "seriously diminished the chances for future Republican success" it claimed. The paper, which has been described as the "quasi-official organ of the Bush Administration"[77] also stated that more people would have to "bendover" to get anywhere in a political office and has called on Republicans to move to the center for the sake of the party's future viability saying "conservatives won't want to hear this, but the Republican who maneuvered his way into the most impressive victory ... won ... after moving to the center" and that "the South is not enough space to build a national governing majority".[78][79]

The government of the People's Republic of China is said to be nervous about the effect a Democrat-led Congress might have on its exports to the United States market and the possible controversy that could result because of the country's human rights record. Nancy Pelosi, who became the Speaker of the House, is a noted critic of Chinese policy. Concerns likely to be raised include the undervalued Chinese currency, blamed by some for the recent losses in the American manufacturing industry, and issues such as internet censorship, piracy, limited market access within China itself for companies based in the U.S., and religious freedom.[80] The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu stated that she hoped the United States would play a "constructive role" in maintaining "sound, healthy and stable relations between China and the U.S.".[81]

BelgianMinister of DefenceAndré Flahaut expressed his approval of Rumsfeld's resignation. He said Rumsfeld was "obstinate", and he hoped that the elections would bring upon a change in the United States' foreign policy.[81]

The German Foreign Office's coordinator for German-American cooperation, Karsten D. Voigt, said that he believed that the Democrat-controlled Congress will be more cooperative with the world, but he expects that Europeans will have to carry more influence on such foreign issues of importance, such as the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and the nuclear weapon programs of North Korea and Iran. Voigt further stated that Europe needed to develop a stronger relationship with the United States, especially with newly elected Congressional politicians. Voigt went on to say that doing so would help "better convey European positions on major international issues and make concerted efforts to find constructive political solutions for the future."[81]

Labour PartyMember of ParliamentJohn McDonnell, a critic of United Kingdom Prime MinisterTony Blair, said, "the message of the American people is clear – there needs to be a major change of direction in Iraq. Just as in Britain, people in the U.S. feel that they have been ill advised, misled and ignored."[82] McDonnell, who became the first Labour Party MP to announce that he would stand for leadership in 2007, also said, "These election results have not only damaged Bush, they mean that Blair is now totally isolated in the international community."[82]

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran. "This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world", Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." "The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration", the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.[83]

In a letter to the American people released on Wednesday, November 29, 2006, via Iran's Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York City, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote:

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the U.S. :

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the U.S. Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history.

If the U.S. Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America . But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.[84][85]